Category Corrupt DC Uni-party

Nov 21 2022

Sunday Talks, Democrat J6 Committee Confirms Intent to Transfer Evidence to Special Counsel During Lame Duck to Begin Republican Targeting Operations


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 20, 2022 | sundance 

If you doubted the intent of the primary function of the appointment for Special Counsel John Smith, you can put that doubt to rest now.  Appearing on CBS FtN Democrat Rep Zoe Lofgren confirms the intent of the Garland appointment is to receive evidence from the J6 Committee and utilize that evidence in the targeting operation against Republicans in congress.

Read the carefully worded statements from Lofgren and compare them to the background we previously outlined.  Everything is clear.  WATCH:

Primary goal, create enough of a legal mess as to obstruct any republican legislative effort against the Biden White House.  Additionally, if Smith’s DC team can pick-off a few republican House members under charges of “supporting an insurrection“, the political power will revert back to the Democrats in office.

They didn’t just think this up overnight.

This is why the January 6 committee never ended.  They are using J6 as a weapon against their losing the House to republicans.  The Democrats are now structurally targeting Republicans with the appointment of Jack Smith.  It’s actually a brilliant move.  The executive is now investigating the legislative branch; the legal structure of this eliminates the separation of powers issue.

The DOJ is not investigating republicans, they are investigating defined criminals; insurrectionists that are national security threats, that happen to be republicans.  See how that works?

[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to California Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren. She serves on the Judiciary Committee and the Select Committee investigating January 6. Good morning to you, Congresswoman. I want to get straight to it. Does the refusal of the Vice President and the former president to comply with your investigation in any way impede the impact or outcome?

REP. ZOE LOFGREN: Well, we wish they had come in. Certainly other Presidents have come in when asked by the Congress, including Gerald Ford, Teddy Roosevelt, many others. It is almost Thanksgiving, and the committee turns into a pumpkin at the end of December. So we don’t have time to litigate this. But I think they’ve cheated history. And they should have done otherwise. We, on the other hand, have received substantial information from other sources. And we’re in the process of, as I’m sure you know, writing our report now, and —

MARGARET BRENNAN: You’re continuing to gather information, as I understand it, speaking to two Secret Service officials recently. What more do you need? And are you still sharing that information with the Justice Department?

LOFGREN: Well, we’re not sharing information with the Justice Department. We’re doing our own investigation. However, we anticipate when our report is released, to release all of the evidence that we have assembled so the public can see it, including the Department of Justice.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, what do you have? I understand the committee has released documents to the Department of Justice, is that not the case?

LOFGREN: Well, we’re not – we’re no, we’re, we’re, we’re doing our own investigation.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

LOFGREN: And within a month, they – the public will have everything that we’ve found, all the evidence. For good or ill. And I think we’ve, as we’ve shown in our hearings, made a compelling presentation, that the former president was at the center of the effort to overturn a duly elected election, assembled the mob, sent it over to Congress to try and interfere with the peaceful transfer of power. It’s pretty shocking.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, as we know, the Justice Department has its own investigation. And that’s what led us to the Attorney General making news just a few days ago with this special counsel to take up the events surrounding January 6. But what does putting this in the hands of a Special Counsel accomplish here? Do you think it actually removes politics? Or does it still just keep it there since the Attorney General will still have oversight of the special counsel?

LOFGREN: Well, I think from what the Attorney General said he sought to depoliticize this investigation. Obviously, career professionals are doing it and to have a special counsel overseeing it. But you know, the right wing never fails, up is down and down is up. The effort to depoliticize they are now criticizing is somehow a political measure. So, you know, the effort to say segregated the investigation from the Attorney General himself, is in the eye of the beholder. And of course, the former president is saying he won’t partake as if you know, it’s a – it’s a slice of pizza. I mean, it’s not up to him. He is being investigated for these offenses, and we’ll see what they find.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You sit on the Judiciary Committee, you just heard Rod Rosenstein say that he thinks the US Attorney in Delaware is sufficient in terms of being able to independently decide on what to do with Hunter Biden and that case. I wonder if you agree with that, or if you think your Republican colleagues are right to ask for a special counsel to deal with the current president’s son?

LOFGREN: Well, I don’t know anything about that case. Certainly, in the case of –

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you do have oversight of the Justice Department?

LOFGREN: Yeah. Yes, but we don’t, you know, I served with Mike Pence on the Judiciary Committee. We don’t oversee and interfere with individual investigations in cases. That would be improper in terms of oversight. You know, if if the president’s son has committed offenses, then, you know, there’ll be a judgment on whether to prosecute or not, and that’s the rule of law. Just as the rule of law applies to the former president, people in this country have to adhere to the law. And, you know, if you don’t, if you commit an offense and the facts are there, then there’ll be a prosecution. And that’s what it’s about living in a country where the rule of law, not just politics, leads us. That’s about our democratic republic.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the issue of what to do with Hunter Biden will come before your committee as the chair – the incoming chair of it has said along with the head of oversight, they want to lead investigations.

LOFGREN: There’s nothing – no role for the legislative body and a prosecution.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Understood, but are you prepared as Democrats for this knife fight?

LOFGREN: Well, I mean, we’re going to be there and the incoming Judiciary Committee Chair has a history of playing fast and loose with the truth. We’re aware of that. And we will be there as truth-sayers.

MARGARET BRENNAN: We will be watching Congresswoman. Thank you.

[End Transcript]

The overarching Lawfare framework has been transparently created by President Obama’s former White House Legal Counsel and current U.S. Asst Attorney General Lisa Monaco.

In essence, the J6 investigation – with an emphasis on congress – transfers to Special Counsel Jack Smith:

The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the ongoing investigation into whether any person or entity violated the law in connection with efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the Electoral College vote held on or about January 6, 2021, as well as any matters that arose or might arise directly from this investigation or that are within the scope of [Special Counsel Regulations 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)]. (pdf)

This is an extension of the January 6th Committee special investigation that transfers the committee’s investigative findings, ie phone records, text messages, transcripts, emails, prior testimony and all evidentiary records, into the newly appointed Special Counsel.

However, all prior and current DOJ prosecutions against citizen individuals will remain within the control and direction of Main Justice.  This structure frees up Jack Smith to target the new republican controlled congressional members, their staff, families and/or communication network.   Main Justice keeps focus on the citizen insurrectionists, Jack Smith now appointed to go after the public officials.

J6 Committee staff, committee investigators, FBI agents and DOJ lawyers will now transfer from the committee to the special counsel office.

As you can see from the simple (non-pretending) explanation of what is being done, the Lawfare process becomes clear.

Everything a republican congress now begins to question falls under the protective blanket of an “ongoing investigation,” exactly as we predicted.  Plus, you get the additional Lawfare elements of congressional leadership under investigation which provides an entirely new ‘conflict of interest dynamic’ to the political equation.

Then you have the congressional representatives under investigation and search warrants on their phones, text messages, emails, etc…. AND the added benefit of using DOJ-NSD defined terms of “national security threat” (that’s why they emphasized insurrection) to gain FISA warrants on an entire incoming congressional delegation.

How slick is that? 

All of the congressional J6 and DOJ main justice teams will now assemble in new DC offices to set up the 2023 targeting operation.  The announcement was made a few days ago, but the planning of the construct has been in place for months, contingent upon the number of actual House seats that could flip.  The Lawfare design is transparent when you stop looking at the obfuscation reporting from mainstream media.

Think of it like the legal ideology of the United Nations (democracy as defined by progressives) prosecuting members of the United States government for acts of rebellion under the framework of a constitutional republican form of government they abhor.  That’s Jack Smith.

In addition, the same ideological Lawfare elements will be targeting the threat represented by U.S. nationalist politician Donald J Trump.   It’s like The Great Reset crew inserting an operative inside a corrupt and friendly United States Dept of Justice, with the intent to remove the threat Donald J Trump represents to their interests.

On the multinational corporate side, while all this is special counsel stuff is taking place, the Wall Street billionaires and multinationals -those who control the two Big Clubs known as the DNC and RNC- will be providing the illusion of choice for the American electorate.

More on that aspect coming soon….. 

Nov 21 2022

Sunday Talks, Prepping the Landscape CBS Interviews Former DAG Rod Rosenstein About Garland Special Counsel Appointment


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 20, 2022 | sundance

DATA Links:  (1) Merrick Garland DOJ Statement on Appointment of Special Counsel ~ (2) pdf of Legal Appointment ~ (3) Statement of John Smith upon Appointment ~ (4) Transcript of AG Merrick Garland Public Announcement.

The pretending is severe as CBS recruits former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to discuss the decision by Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel to investigate republicans in congress and President Donald Trump.

You can tell the pretending is severe because neither Rosenstein nor Brennan even touches on the primary aspect to the written instructions by Garland to special counsel John Smith.  The primary function of the special counsel is completely avoided in the interview, [again, read the pdf of the appointment]. Instead, the conversation with Rosenstein focuses on the second, lesser included instruction, the Trump-centric portion.

The corporate media engineers, working on concert with the DC agenda, are pulling Rosenstein into the picture to frame the narrative toward an announcement of an indictment against President Trump. WATCH:

In response to the question of the appointment itself, Rosenstein noted he “probably would not” have made the decision to appoint a special counsel.  However, don’t get too caught up in the granules of the interview itself.  Instead, ask why the media is pulling Rosenstein into the prosecutorial debate?   What benefit is there?  Within those answers you then overlay the fact the primary function of the appointment itself is not part of the conversation.  [Transcript Below]

[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We begin this morning with former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. He appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel for the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and to determine if there were links between that country and former President Trump’s campaign. And he joins us in studio. It is good to have you here in an extraordinary week.

FORMER DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ROD ROSENSTEIN: Good morning. Glad to be here.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to get right to it. Due to the former president launching his campaign, the current president may also run for president, the attorney general said it is absolutely necessary to have a special counsel oversee this investigation into the classified documents found at Mar a Lago and what happened with trying to change the outcome of the 2020 election. If you were in that old role you once had, would you have appointed a special counsel?

ROSENSTEIN: You know, it’s easy to second guess from outside the department. I don’t know exactly what Merrick Garland knows, what information was available to him. He didn’t say that he was required to appoint the special counsel. He said that he thought it was the right thing to do. I believed the circumstances that I faced, that the appointment of Robert Mueller was the right thing to do with regard to the Russia investigation. But I think in this case, Merrick Garland clearly made a discretionary decision. The department had been handling this itself for two years. Could have continued to handle it itself. But he believed that this would help to promote public confidence. I think it remains to be seen whether that’s the case.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you wouldn’t have done this to yourself?

ROSENSTEIN: As I said, it’s it’s easy to second guess from outside. I think, you know, my inclination, given that the investigation had been going on for some time and given the stage which they’ve reached, is that I probably would not have, but I just can’t tell from the outside.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So from where you sit, does the appointment of a special counsel indicate at least a willingness on Merrick Garland part to go ahead with a prosecution, or is that overreading the decision?

ROSENSTEIN: I think what it indicates is that, you know, despite the fact the department has been at this for some time, almost two years on the January six investigation, close to a year, the Mar a Lago investigation, that they still believe that they have a viable potential case. It doesn’t mean they made a decision to go forward. But it certainly is an indication they believe it’s a possibility.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Now, one case that’s been going on longer, the investigation into Hunter Biden, which CBS has learned the FBI has gathered sufficient evidence to charge him with tax and gun related crimes, and that is before the U.S. attorney in Delaware. David Weiss, I believe you know him since he was a Trump appointee. Can he independently oversee this or do we need another special counsel?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, yeah, This investigation, as you said, has been going on for a very long time, which is not good for anybody. You know, it promotes conspiracy theories and suspicions. So my hope is the department will make a decision in the near future about whether to go forward. And hopefully that decision will be accepted by the public. I do believe that the U.S. attorney in Delaware- I know has the right experience to make that decision. So I think we can be confident that he’ll make the right decision in that case.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So not in that case. But let me ask you about the content of what is being scrutinized here with the former president. I know when you were U.S. attorney in Maryland, you dealt with individuals who took classified material, sometimes top secret, high level clearances and kept it at home. And you prosecuted them to the full extent of the law. Why should the president be any different?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, you’re right. We did have a lot of federal agencies in Maryland. And so we had a number of cases that came up during my 12 years as U.S. attorney, both under President Obama and President Bush. And we prosecuted those cases because we believe the facts justified it. Now, if the facts justify prosecution, President Trump, I think the department will make that decision. But we just don’t know from the outside. You know, there are extenuating circumstances when it’s the president, when there are a lot of staffers and lawyers involved. And so I think we have to wait to see how that all shakes out.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Former Attorney General Barr sat with PBS, and this was right before Merrick Garland’s announcement. But he said that to indict the Justice Department needs to show Mr. Trump was consciously involved. Let’s hear what he had to say.

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: I personally think that they probably have the basis for legitimately indicting the press. I don’t know. I’m speculating, but but given what’s gone on, I think they probably have the evidence that would check the box. They have the case.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you agree?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, I don’t know. I think the Attorney General Barr, that is, you know, mentioned later in that interview that he was speculating. And I think it’s you know, there are multiple levels of issues that the department needs to consider, Margaret. Number one is, you know, is the evidence sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction? Number two, is, is it an appropriate use of federal resources to bring that case and a case against a former president, obviously, with the extraordinary would raise unique concerns. And so I would hope that Merrick Garland and his team would be very careful about scrutinizing that evidence, not just checking the box, but making sure that they’re prepared to stand behind the decision that they make.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So when you say sustain a conviction, what do you mean by that? Does that mean looking at the courts that are likely to prosecute me, where would you prosecute this case, Florida or Washington, D.C.?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, it means ensuring that, number one, you get past a jury that has been able to persuade 12 random citizens that your case proves the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And number two, that it will be sustained or upheld on appeal. You know, the department sometimes brings cases in which they use novel theories that prevail in district court but are overruled on appeal if they’re to bring a case against the former president, you want to make sure they had a solid case and they were confident both of conviction and of prevailing on any appeal.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And that there wouldn’t be some national security implication such as political violence?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, you know, that’s and that’s a difficult issue, Margaret, as to whether or not the attorney general should consider the the potential for public unrest if they were to bring a case against the president,

MARGARET BRENNAN: It has to be considered.

ROSENSTEIN: I think it highlights the importance of the department ensuring that they have a solid case that is that they’re going to win a conviction and they’re going to be able to sustain an appeal. The circumstances, the stakes are higher than an ordinary case. You need to make sure if you bring that case that you can persuade people that is meritorious that you deserve to win.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, that gets at the fundamentals, the distrust of institution where we are these days. But the former president is already said he’s not going to comply with any investigations. He said that on Friday. So what does this mean for the timeline? Are we running right into the 2024 presidential campaign?

ROSENSTEIN: I’m concerned about about the timing. Obviously, the the new special counsel, Jack Smith, needs to get up to speed in the case. He’s not even in the U.S. so he needs to come back and get engaged and supervise his team. He may need to bring in additional team members, people he trusts to review the circumstances. And then there are other potential delays as well. You know, one of the downsides of appointing a special counsel is the possibility of litigation over the validity of the appointment of the special counsel. And that has always been upheld by the courts. But litigation can impose additional delay. So I think there’s a fair chance that this is going to drag in well into the campaign season.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And then the question of whether the candidate wins or not. Rod Rosenstein, thank you for your insight and for joining us today.

ROSENSTEIN: Thank you.

{End Transcript}

Nov 20 2022

Lee Zeldin Seriously Considering Running for RNC Chair Position


Posted originally on the conservative tree house November 19, 2022 | Sundance 

The current RNC Chairwoman, Ronna McDaniel, intends on submitting her name for another two-year term as the head of the Republican National Committee.  However, given her inability to manage modern electioneering, in my opinion, she needs to be removed.

Former Congressman Lee Zeldin is considering putting his name in the hat for consideration at the January/February RNC winter meeting (unknown venue).  Given the nature of the landscape, and without insight into any other potential candidates to head the RNC, Lee Zeldin needs to be supported.

During an interview with Fox News Laura Ingraham, Lee Zeldin said he was seriously considering making himself available for the position.  WATCH:

I have a very good hunch what plans are going to come out of the RNC winter meeting for the 2023 and 2024 landscape.  The RNC 2024 campaign rules, state primaries, delegate decisions and much more are going to come from that meeting.   I can guarantee you the professional political class within the RNC, and particularly the corporate donors to the Republican Party, is/are going to want Ronna McDaniel to remain.

Setting aside Donald Trump’s former support for her, Ronna McDaniel will not be a good thing for 2024.

RNC Chairwoman McDaniel lives in Michigan, the same state where DNC midterm ballot collection led to significant defeats for Republican candidates.  Are we to believe that McDaniel didn’t see what was happening in her own backyard, and didn’t have a plan for it?

If McDaniel was surprised by the ballot collection outcome in Michigan (or Pennsylvania) she should be removed for incompetence.  If McDaniel was not surprised by the outcome in Michigan (or Pennsylvania), she should be removed for incompetence.

The bottom line is the RNC needs a new electioneering focus and strategic ballot collection approach.  You do not structurally create a new system by retaining those with a vested interest in maintaining the flawed system.

In May of 2020, I was urging anyone on President Trump’s team to pay attention to how the COVID-19 crisis was changing the landscape with mass distribution of mail-out ballots.  My suggestion at the time was to bring in Catherine Englebrecht to strategize how ballot collection was going to change the election outcome 8 months later.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=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&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1260365085979152386&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconservativetreehouse.com%2Fblog%2F2022%2F11%2F19%2Flee-zeldin-seriously-considering-running-for-rnc-chair-position%2F&sessionId=c8b8fa7f8919fd662632b87124a9b554a4ad6d8d&theme=light&widgetsVersion=a3525f077c700%3A1667415560940&width=500px

The organizers and network of True the Vote, need to align with the RNC and develop systems to: (1) monitor ballot distribution; and (2) organize ballot collection, in states that are going to continue the mass distribution of statewide ballots.

Perhaps Lee Zeldin isn’t the best qualified candidate to head the RNC, I don’t know.  However, what I do know is…  for the base voters within MAGA, Ronna McDaniel is the worst candidate to run the RNC heading into the 2024 election.

Additionally, McDaniel is a direct beneficiary of the same corporate influence machine that wants to remove Donald Trump from the RNC.

Perhaps the single biggest mistake Donald Trump could make for 2024 would be supporting the retention of Ronna McDaniel.   Maybe I’m wrong, maybe all the alarms are due to something else, but I don’t think I am.  At a certain point you have to accept things as they are, not as you might wish them to be.  Regardless, she’s not worth the risk.

We can already see the influence of corporations in the structure of the next political contest.  The RNC Chair is already in a tenuous position given the RNC club reliance on corporate donations for operations.  Having an RNC Chair that is willing to modify electioneering strategy to support additional donor funding, means we end up with an RNC Chair that is willing to undermine Donald Trump.

In advance of the 2023 RNC winter meeting, I will be providing insight into the baseline outlook amid the participants who will attend and design the 2024 strategy.

Nothing is organic within Big Club politics within either the RNC or DNC.  Both private clubs operate a financial system that is dependent on support that comes from multinational corporations and Wall Street billionaires.

The priorities of the RNC are all driven by money.  After all, the RNC is itself a corporation.  That puts the priority of the RNC (keep corporations happy) at odds with the majority of the base Republican voters who want the America First platform.

Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel has a history reflecting her willingness to take strategic electioneering advice from corporate donors.  Going into 2024 what those donors want, the removal of populist influence, is not in the interest of the MAGA vote base.  It really is that simple.

If President Trump supports Ronna McDaniel for RNC club chair again, candidate Trump runs the risk repeating the mistakes of the 2016 Bernie Sanders campaign as it relates to a similar dynamic within the DNC club.

Nov 19 2022

Nunes: Special counsel investigating Trump is criminal


Devin Nunes Published originally on Rumble on  November 18, 2022

Biden (Obama?) Directs AG Merrick Garland and the DOJ to Ramp up Attacks on President Donald Trump.

Nov 19 2022

Democrats Lied About Abortion Just to Win


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics Re-Posted Nov 18, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Dick Armey is the former House Majority Leader and an Economist from Texas. He was elected to Congress in 1984,and arrived in Washington as a novice. Dick, being an economist, was a strong believer in the policies of Ronald Reagan. He was a staunch supporter of his policies, which were revolutionary for Washington. Because of his background, Dick quickly rose through the ranks of his party in Washington and became the primary author of the “Contract with America.” That was actually a collection of ten bills that would be brought up for a vote during the first 100 days of a Republican-controlled Congress.

Bill Archer served as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1970 to 2001. Bill was a lawyer and originally a Democrat who saw the light of failed Marxism and switched to the Republican Party in 1969. He later on represented Texas in the House of Representatives for 30 years, from 1971 until 2001. Bill’s last six years was as chairman of the most powerful committee, the House Ways and Means Committee.

Dick was for the Flat Tax and Bill was for the Retail Sales Tax. I found myself trying to negotiate between the two and that was the end of my effort to try to contribute in Washington and ended my naivety. I was sitting in Dick’s office and he said to me, “Marty, you know cycles.” He explained that he could not support Bill because without repealing the 16th Amendment that created the income tax, “when the Democrats get back in, we will have both.”

It was at that moment that I realized my effort was hopeless. I said: “Dick, you are right.”

An amendment to the Constitution may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose.

There is no way the Democrats were being honest. They knew they could NEVER create a Constitutional Amendment on abortion, gay marriage, or repealing the Income Tax. Such amendments are impossible for even getting passed in the House and Senate, they  still must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

Perhaps all the women who voted Democrat solely because of the lies they told about abortion will wake up and realize in politics, all is fair as in war. It NEVER has anything to do with truth.

I can run for office and promise whatever is fashionable to win. However, when you get to Washington, you are given a little greeting ceremony and then you are told that means nothing. You will be instructed what to vote for and that is why you see all these votes down party line. You NO LONGER vote for any politicians individually, you vote for the party and people in the backroom determine what will be the vote – the unelected bureaucrats.

So the Democrats outright lied to win. They could NEVER get abortion as a constitutional right – total BS just as repealing the 16th Amendment to end income taxes. We do not live in a Democracy for We the People have no direct right to vote on anything.

We live in a Republic which is becoming an Authoritarian Regime abandoning the foundation of civilization turning one group against another until the whole thing comes crashing down, Civilization exists ONLY when everyone benefits – not what we have today rising hatred and political arguments pitting man against his brother until mankind exists no more.

Nov 18 2022

Article 5 Against Ukraine?


Armstrong Economics Blog/War Re-Posted Nov 18, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT: Ukraine attacked Poland. Does this not make Ukraine an enemy now since they struck  a nato country?

REPLY: That would certainly be a plot twist. It would never happen since the agenda is to go to war with Russia. Zelensky did not immediately apologize to Poland for killing two Polish citizens, as he was hoping his new friends would blame Russia and immediately begin World War III.

It was a very passive apology as well. He apologized for the “Russian missile terror” and alleviated himself of any blame. “Expressed condolences over the death of Polish citizens from Russian missile terror. We exchanged available information and are clarifying all the facts. Ukraine, Poland, all of Europe and the world must be fully protected from terrorist Russia,” Zelensky said on Twitter.

Technically, Ukraine did attack Poland. Poland is a NATO member, and Ukraine is not. It does not matter if it was an accident, as they can use any excuse to start a full-scale global war under the current conditions of NATO that say “any” attack could be grounds for collective defense.

As Article 5 notes:

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
Nov 18 2022

Nancy Pelosi Announces She Will Not Seek Democrat Leadership Position, But Will Remain in Congress


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 17, 2022 | Sundance

The most divisive woman in modern American politics announced today she will not seek to remain in House leadership but will remain as a member of congress representing San Francisco, California. The rule of Nancy Pelosi has ended, but her influence will remain.

Following a midterm election which removed Democrats from the majority in the House of Representatives, Speaker Pelosi announced her decision today from the floor of the House.

Citing her firm devotion to her Catholic faith and referencing the need for her to continue in congress on behalf of the babies born today, Satan’s mistress delivered a sanctimonious diatribe that was embraced with a standing ovation by the Democrats in congress.  Video below: 

Nov 17 2022

Trump is Back


Armstrong Economic Blog/Politics Re-Posted Nov 17, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Donald Trump announced that he is officially running for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. The only president in American history to win re-election after a defeat was Grover Cleveland in 1892. The establishment repeatedly tried to impeach Trump to prevent him from seeking a second term, but he’s back.

Trump wanted to keep America out of war. He threatened to leave NATO and pushed other countries to contribute their fair share. It is safe to say that Trump would likely not be sending billions to Ukraine under his America first policy that branded him as selfish. We talk about energy fears crippling the world, but America was the top producer of oil and natural gas under his presidency.

At this point, no one can honestly say they are better off under Biden. When I attended an event at Mar-a-Lago, I was very impressed by Trump. It was the first time in my entire career that I heard a head of state concerned about the soldiers they sent off to war. He said we needed to face the fact that foreign governments have been fighting over borders in the Middle East for ages, and it was not our place to intervene. He said he never wanted to call another mother and tell her that their child had died in a pointless battle.

He was not afraid to speak to our enemies and even became the first US president to cross the border into North Korea. Our current president can barely speak in general and has put America last. A vote for Trump was a vote against the establishment. Politicians cried that he had no experience in politics, but that is precisely why he won in 2016 — because he is not you.

The establishment will continue its efforts to take down Trump by any means. He has too many supporters for that to be an easy feat, and he’s prepared to enter political guerilla warfare. In all honesty, by the time we reach 2024, there may not even be a presidential election. We must crash and burn.